This is somewhat encouraging:
Fox News: A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.
Patraeus’s office denies that he’s made up his mind, but they say he’s taking everything under advisement.
I certainly hope the source is correct, and our troops can fight this thing to win it. Otherwise, what are we doing there?
The only Rules of Engagement” in World War II was the Geneva Convention. Maybe we wanted to win that one. ROE worked real well for us in Vietnam, didn’t it. The USA never has to lose a war that it’s political leaders intend to win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The differences:
WWII was IN-YOUR-FACE. These “dirty little wars” Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan…not so much.
You can only make stategic decisions from the White House. The local commanders do tactics.
Dems like to micro (mis)manage. Look at when the Dems were in charge of fighting these “little” wars….. Truman/Korea Johnson/Vietnam and now Obama.
Besides, the Dems hate the military, the war and (apparently) America.
BUT SAM! The Dems don’t hate America!
No? Then why do they always do stuff like they do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0